Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., No. 71125

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Writing for the Court: BENHAM; BANKE
• Citation: 178 Ga.App. 467,343 S.E.2d 492
• Parties: , 106 Lab.Cas. P 55,715 MACKEY v. LANIER COLLECTION AGENCY & SERVICE, INC.
• Docket Number: No. 71125
• Decision Date: 18 February 1986

Page 492

343 S.E.2d 492 178 Ga.App. 467, 106 Lab.Cas. P 55,715 MACKEY
v.
LANIER COLLECTION AGENCY & SERVICE, INC. No. 71125. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Feb. 18, 1986.
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1986.
Certiorari Granted May 30, 1986.

[178 Ga.App. 470] Louisa Abbot, Savannah, Thomas W. Gleason, Jr., Charles R. Goldburg, New

Page 493

York City, Fletcher Farrington, Savannah, for appellant.

John T. Sparkman, Jr., Ronald C. Crawford, Carl S. Pedigo, Jr., Savannah, for appellee.

[178 Ga.App. 467] BENHAM, Judge.

Appellant is the trustee of the South Atlantic ILA/Employee Vacation & Holiday Fund ("Fund") against which appellee, Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. ("Lanier") instituted garnishment proceedings in the State Court of Chatham County. The Fund, established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, provides vacation and holiday benefits to longshoremen and others who work at several southeastern ports. After money judgments were obtained against some of the Fund's individual beneficiaries, appellee sought to garnishee their Fund benefits.

Appellant/garnishee answered complaints in the garnishment, claiming that since the judgments were not for alimony or child support, the Fund was exempt pursuant to OCGA § 18-4-22.1. Appellee traversed the answers, and a hearing was held. The trial court determined that "the legislative history of the Georgia statute evinces an intention to make the Georgia law identical to the federal law" (29 U.S.C.A. § 1056(d)(1)) which prohibits garnishment of pension plan funds but not of vacation plan funds, and ruled in favor of Lanier. We granted appellant's application for discretionary appeal to resolve the controversy.

Appellant enumerates as error the trial court's holding that OCGA § 18-4-22.1 does not exempt from garnishment vacation benefit plan funds that are subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") (29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.) Appellant further cites as error the trial court's reliance on the preamble to OCGA § 18-4-22.1 to ascertain the legislature's intent; he argues that since the language of the statute itself is clear and unambiguous, resort to the preamble was unnecessary. Appellee disagrees and also contends that if the Fund is subject to ERISA and if OCGA § 18-4-22.1 is interpreted to exempt the Fund, the statute is nullified by ERISA's preemption provision, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144(a). We preface [178 Ga.App. 468] our resolution of these issues with an examination of some of ERISA's purposes.

1. ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to set standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans and to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in those plans. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001(b); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2896, 77 L.Ed.2d 490, 497 (1983). ERISA defines an "employee pension benefit plan" as one that provides income deferral or retirement income, and an "employee welfare benefit plan" as any program that provides benefits for contingencies such as sickness, accident disability, death, unemployment, or vacation benefits. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1); (2)(A). In Franchise Tax Board etc. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, etc., 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983), the Supreme Court, although declining jurisdiction over the issue whether a vacation trust was subject to a tax levy the State of California attempted to impose against individual delinquent taxpayer/trust beneficiaries, held that the trust was "unquestionably...